Comparing Machiavelli's 'War And Historical Necessity'

War and Historical Necessity It is previously mentioned how war is used as a tool of the state to control internal resistance to new princes and Machiavelli begins to delve into the specifics of the military in chapters 12 to 14. Machiavelli makes it clear that an armed force is vital to the state because all states have “good laws and good arms … there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed” (Machiavelli (1515), 55). Having a strong army is vital to good laws because the states must have their sovereignty safeguarded or else face domination by foreign states who would, at best, impose an oligarchy and strict control, as previously suggested by Machiavelli in chapter 5. Although not explicitly stated by Machiavelli, it can be assumed that good laws is to be understood as good for the state and not necessarily good from a moral standpoint. Machiavelli begins to delve into the specific types of armed forces and which should be employed by a ruler. Although the specific advice is firmly applicable to his specific point in time, similar to Clausewitz’s On War, the philosophical choices between mercenary and native forces are important. Machiavelli opposed mercenary forces because they are disloyal …show more content…
As an early realist, Machiavelli utilized historical examples as empirical evidence to present his view almost as a science (Meinecke (1962), 29). Historical necessity is the concept that the choices made surrounding the ruling of a state are made out of necessity and history demonstrates the necessity for these decisions. A recurring example used by Machiavelli is the Roman Republic and he often uses France at the time as an example of poor statecraft. Since state interest is born out of necessity, it is acceptable that the decisions proposed by Machiavelli are immoral because there simply is no other choice in order to properly rule a